So so much for finding an effect, once again the Boycott is not the main item for the protesters, they are protesting against the stupid House bill.
And I while I do think it is possible there would be a backlash, I do think in the long run the backlash will go against the pro deportation Republicans. After managing somehow to remain as governor in part due to supporting proposition 187 in California, then the courts overthrew many of the provisions as unconstitutional, and the result was that before, 9 percent of California voters were Latino, now it is 19 percent and most of them Democrats because of prop 187. Then In 1996 and 2000, Wilson, who once hoped to run for president, was radioactive even among Republicans; in part because George W. Bush, who had strong support among Latinos in Texas, was portrayed as un-Wilson.
After this distraction is over, even if pro deportation Republicans do manage to fool the voters of Middle America now, I do see that future generations of Americans will never forget how they had their chains pulled or came close to be declared criminals.
If this protest is to prevent the pasage of a bill that makes being here illegally a felony, then these are the most politically naive protesters in the historry of this country. There is no way that that that provision is going to pass. No way.
As messy as this legislative process might appear, this is how stuff gets hammered out in Congress. The idea that a boycott is going to have a positive effect on the political process is absurd. More than likely we’ll see a backlash, and the bill that eventually gets passed will be more harsh than it would have been without the boycott. Americans, like most people, don’t respond well to threats.
I responded to this in the other thread, Here it is again:
You keep trying to make this point, somehow trying to lay the blame for these protests on government actions. You are wrong.
Yes, of course, the recent debates in congress have brought the issue to the fore, but WHY is the issue being debated. It’s because about 11 million people have broken our laws. We agree that the government is somewhat complicit allowing the problem to get so big, but the fact remains, there are laws on the books that these people willfully violated. THAT is the reason we have this problem now. To attempt to blame congress for this mess now, when they are FINALLY attemptiing to enforce the law and control our border, ranges from laughable to disengenuous. Thank goodness for the Minutemen who have shed light on the issue and are forcing our chickenshit politicians to do their duty.
One of the articles you cited makes the argument that our immigration laws are unjust. I, and I bet most Americans, would not agree with that estimation. Any country has the right to set its own immigration policy and control its own borders. But even if they are unjust, it is not up to people who snuck into this country to change our laws. Anyone who raises their hand to do so shold be the first ones shipped out—immediately.
At a very basic level its simply an issue of manners. Even a guest knows that they should display the good graces of not making demands of a host. If I come to your house for dinner I don’t start making demands about how you cook the chicken. And these people aren’t even guests. They’re trespassers. Law-breakers. And for them to make ANY demands on the people’s home into which they have stealed is the height of hubris and disrespect. These “protests” have brought this to light. For THAT, I am glad they happened. Maybe, finally, America will wake up and do what has to be done about this invasion of illegals. This is an attack on our national sovereignity, and it is incumbent upon our elected officials to make sure that our laws are enforced. And I, for one, am doing what I can to hold them accountable.
FYI, I have responded to your response to the above.
As far as the OP, DrDeth, has made a good and (I hope) accurate point.
I think you are correct here. And from a tactical standpoint, I’m not sure that taking an issue that has been kept under the rug for so long and drawing hyper-attention to it is the wisest thing. My guess is that many people were happy to not even think about it. But once it’s slapped in front of their faces, their not going to be to happy about 1) the extent of the problem and 2) as you said, react well to what they perceive as threats or ultimatums.
And still my points are valid:
No, the idea is to make it worse for those illegals and to even turn the people who are helping into criminals.
Not at all, many see the lack of money to do so and then realize the plan of the house is a fairy story.
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Immigration
Even the local conservative press called the Minutemen clowns.
The situation right now is of a host that is demanding other hosts to be arrested if they help the guests. I think even on biblical times God preferred to side with the guests rather than the hosts.
Even conservatives in this board have mentioned that the House plan will be changed or dismissed.
Looking again at your reply in the pit, I have to say you had no response.
Keep hoping.
Your last paragraph gets confusing when one reads the first, so then there is a way it could pass anyway? Sorry, being quiet about an unfair bill is more silly. even more so when the boycott is not approved by the majority of the organizers of the protest.
The ultimatum is coming from the House right now. You bet we should not react well to perceived treats or ultimatums, but I think that just like they demonstrated on the peaceful protests of a few days ago, we will react better than the right wing is “hoping” for, sorry guys, the violence unfortunately will come likely from the other side.
As valid as they were before, i.e., not very.
Well, that seems to be a practical problem. Practical problems can often be solved with a little creative thinking. So, is the problem you have a practical one or an idealogical one? Is there any point in exploring solutions for the practical problem?
Yes, the powers that be have done a fine job of demonizing these fine Americans. Not surprising in the least considering the conduct of bot our dem and rep elected officials over the past few decades. And now.
There is no host. A host implies an invitation. If you sneak in to my house you are not a guest. These people are trespassers. We can have a reasonable debate about the people who are helping them without trying to obfuscate the fact that there are millions here illegally.
No doubt. And again you point to a practical problem, which there may be ways to solve.
I will.
And as you did not notice in the pit, only this item had the resemblance of a response.
Taking a different tack here:
I think you are really naive when you ignore that indeed many are guests in the houses of legal residents, once again, if captured I have no problem in their deportation, those are the rules now. The problem now is that the ultimatum from congress (even if it was designed only to fool middle America) includes more than just illegals, those threats will never be forgotten by the future generations of legal Americans.
Ah naivety, condescension with a velvet hand. Oh well…
I’ve asked you a couple times now, is your objection idealogical or practical? In the other thread you seem to imply that your objection is a practical one: that we do not have the means to deport anyone. Yet you touch on the idealogical, as well. Which is it? If it is idealogical we can focus the debate on what SHOULD be done. If it is practical, we can talk about what COULD be done.
Let me ask you thiis: would you be for a plan, for instance that made illegals felons, but not those who help them? Why or why not?
Why are both items separated? Both your ideological and practical propositions have flaws.
I just see now that you are just discussing for the sake of discussing, the responses are there already in the previous posts, suffice to say the answer remains no.
And stop misquoting.
Yeah, you see my position as being flawed and I see yours the same way. Now what specifically is wrong, from a practical standpoint of having the goal of all illegals either being deported or leaving of theire own volition? Let’s say we have a more realistic goal of 75% of them. If I could get around the money/manpower problem, are you then okay with it?
And then from and Ideological standpoint, 1) does a country have the right to have complete control over its borders? 2) does a country have the right to set their own immigration policy? 3) If someone is found to have gained illegal entry, does the country have a right to deport them? (I thinik you agree with this, just checking)
My apologies. The entire quote was mine. I screwed up the coding. But you knew that, and still you tried to make it sound like a thing I’ve done repeatedly. You know that is not the case. Still, it was my screw-up. So, again, my apologies.
Looking at the current money in the budget for Homeland Security talking of getting 20% of them is getting close to reality.
Yes.
Yes. And also to change it.
Yes.
I have to explain here that I do agree with someone that said that it is better to turn your enemies into your friends, likewise I do think the bills, beside including a process to legalize the stay of many, will get money from them to now be able to enforce the law better. Because even I see that last time, when it was indeed an amnesty, there was little done on the way to fund properly the enforcement of the new immigration rules.
Deportation of all now will be not only a waste of money (don’t forge that lawyers will get a big chunk of that money in many borderline cases like the ones Eva Luna mentioned), but in many cases it will be inhuman.
And regarding the OP, once again cool your jets: at least in Arizona, now 99% of organizers will not call for a boycott:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0419boycott0419.html
Yep, the local guys are making me proud. I’m going to check it out.
All legal immigrants have rights already,Why should some one who broke our laws have priviledges?
They may contribute to our scociety in some ways but in many ways they place an unnecessary burden on the rest of the country. Many are on welfare, their gangs cause trouble on our streets. And we also have the health system burdened.
In the case of Mexico that country shoud start doing more for it’s citizens then it does now, it is much easier if they just let them come here. I do not blame a person for wanting to better their lives but their protests should be in the country of their origin.and they should not be here illegally. If the law doesn’t mean anything then why have it?
Monavis
I think the boycott is a great idea. In fact, they should extend it. Stay home all week, or all month. Take a long vacation and visit the folks in the old country, and get a valid visa before you come back.
It is a stupid bill. But there’s no real need to get all het up about it. It isn’t going to pass, and it wasn’t intended to pass. It’s a diversion. And, it’s working great! :rolleyes: 
I am not saying a little political action- a letter writing campaign and such like- wasn’t and isn’t called for. But this is using up too much energy on a stupid diversionary tactic. In other words, the Dems?liberals are again falling for the tricks of the Administration.
As for the cost being “too high”? Don’t be a naif. What’s the cost of the “War on Drugs”? **$50 billion ** a year. Yet Middle America ponies this up quite happily. What’s the cost of the War in Iraq? (which should be the real current hot issue, along with the HUGE defict it’s causing?)
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
Well said. You too, mks57.
In fact, how about if all legal residents have a boycott of our own. How about if for one week we do not hire any illegals. Everyone cuts their own lawn, cleans their own homes and offices, eats at no restaurants unless they are 100% sure of the staff all being legal, protests all corporations that employ illegals (Tyson’s Chicken, etc.). How about doing it for a month? Whataya think? Even if it’s just for a day, I think it would have a much bigger effect on their lives than their boycott will have on mine. And maybe the employers will get the message.
My basic take-away message to the United States from the boycott activists:
“You are not in control of who comes into your country - we are. If you try to pass laws about it, or enforce any existing laws, we will activate our sleeper agents (in the form of people who you previously allowed in legally) to damage your economy.”
I’m very much in favor of a much more lenient immigration/guest worker policy, but I think the boycotters have damaged themselves quite a bit in this process.
If someone comes into my country illegally and then threatens an economic boycott demanding citizenship that’s arrogant on a scale I can’t measure. It’s a 2-way street my amigo. Consider the entire month of May **Cinco de Bite Me ** month. I’m not going to stand around with a bullhorn or signs. I’ll just quietly spend my money as I see fit.